Should Americans surrender their freedom for government
drugs?
By Richard E. Ralston
web posted September 15, 2003
A Congressional conference committee is now attempting to
reach a compromise between a bad Medicare prescription drug
bill passed by the House and a worse drug bill passed by the
Senate. The only possible outcome is something awful -- and
President Bush, who is pressuring Republicans to compromise,
has pledged to sign practically any bill to emerge.
Citizens who care about their health, their finances, and their
freedom can only hope that the Senate and House of
Representatives reject whatever comes out of the conference
committee.
Both bills propose the largest expansion of government in nearly
40 years. With the federal budget running the largest deficit in
history, even the grossly underestimated additional cost of $400
billion over ten years is an outrageous burden on taxpayers. If
both Social Security and Medicare are in crisis over the prospect
of millions of Baby Boomers, this Medicare drug bill can only
make matters much worse. Yet this is the least important fault of
this legislation.
Despite being among the richest generations of older humans
over age 65 in history, retired Americans, according to those
who favor Medicare drug subsidies, can't afford prescription
drugs. There's no doubt drug costs are rising, but where is the
evidence that most seniors have to choose between drugs and
dinner?
On the contrary, the last 30 years have seen the most
phenomenal growth in new drugs in history -- drugs that improve
both the quality and the length of life. People are living longer,
better lives due to the brilliant scientific breakthroughs produced
by U.S. pharmaceutical firms.
But Bush and the bill's Congressional proponents apparently
believe that drug companies -- confronted by price controls and
new Medicare regulations dictating which drugs doctors can
prescribe for seniors -- will continue to spend $22 billion on
research and development.
The biggest bait and switch lies in the delusion that the plan will
actually pay for prescriptions. Bill proponents don't say much
about higher Medicare premiums or bigger co-payments, or
rising deductibles, or restrictive formularies, which include many
low cost drugs --- but not the drugs doctors prefer to prescribe.
Your doctor will continue to recommend what you need. The
government will decide what you get.
Some people do have a hard time paying for their prescriptions.
They would have an easier time if they were not taxed for the
dollars they spend on prescriptions and free market reforms,
such as tax-free medical savings accounts, are more likely to
help than a handout with strings attached.
But the fact that some people have a tough time paying for drugs
does not make it right for the government to force everyone to
use and pay for government-run health care. Someone's need is
not a claim on everyone else's income. If you have trouble
paying for your prescriptions now, just wait until you have to pay
for everyone's prescriptions.
The politicians -- from virtually every Congressman to President
Bush, who has vowed to sign almost any Medicare expansion
bill regardless of cost or merit -- have it half-right. The way
Americans buy prescription drugs -- indeed, the way Americans
finance their use of the medical profession -- desperately needs
an expansion.
But politicians, as usual, have the drug issue exactly backwards:
what ought to be expanded is not government-controlled
medicine. What ought to be expanded is freedom - the freedom
to choose, pay for and control one's health care. Congress and
the White House ought to embrace the concept of choice in
medicine and kill the Medicare prescription drug bill.
Richard E. Ralston is Executive Director of Americans for Free
Choice in Medicine (http://www.afcm.org).
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com